India defends nuclear deal with US

By Carol Giacomo, Diplomatic Correspondent

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – India on Wednesday defended a
controversial new civilian nuclear cooperation deal with the
United States and rejected demands by American critics that New
Delhi accept curbs on its atomic weapons program.

Ahead of talks with senior U.S. officials, Indian Foreign
Secretary Shyam Saran said he was bringing “ideas” to address a
centerpoint of the July 18 deal — India’s commitment to place
nuclear facilities associated with its civilian energy program
under international inspection.

But he declined to give details, including how India would
treat its Canadian-supplied Cirus nuclear plant, which experts
say was intended for peaceful use but was diverted for military
purposes.

“We are not talking here about a capping of India’s
strategic (nuclear weapons) program. We are not talking here
about a fissile material cutoff” but about how to meet India’s
burgeoning energy needs, he told the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace, a think tank.

Saran, who later met Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice,
said a fissile material cutoff halting India’s production of
bomb-grade nuclear fuel, and other changes suggested by
nonproliferation advocates, would be “deal-breakers.”

The agreement, which must be approved by the U.S. Congress,
would give India access to nuclear technology, including fuel
and reactors, that it has been denied for 25 years.

Experts fear that as the deal is now written, India would
acquire nuclear fuel from the United States for civilian use,
thus freeing up its own stocks for more weapons.

Carnegie experts say India has enough weapons-grade
plutonium for 75 to 110 nuclear bombs.

For more than two decades, Washington led the fight to deny
India access to nuclear technology because it rejected the
nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and developed nuclear weapons.

But President George W. Bush, aiming to build an alliance
with the world’s largest democracy, reversed that approach.

U.S. and Indian officials are keen to work out differences
on this and other initiatives in time for Bush’s planned visit
to New Delhi in early 2006. State Department spokesman Sean
McCormack said he had “every expectation that it will be the
historic visit that everybody wants.”

CONCERN OVER CIRUS REACTOR

Experts and some U.S. congressmen say the July 18 accord
undermines nonproliferation objectives by rewarding a state
that built a nuclear arsenal in contravention of international
norms.

Under the deal, India made certain nonproliferation
commitments and Saran said bringing India into the fold this
way was “indispensable for the emergence of a new global
consensus” on halting the spread of weapons.

He said India met its past international commitments and
would assure that U.S. civilian technology supplied in the
future would not be diverted to military uses or third parties.

But former U.S. energy official Leonard Spector said the 40
megawatt Cirus reactor located north of Mumbai was proof of an
“apparent diversion” and must be resolved.

The United States is affected because it supplied Cirus
with heavy water, which is used to moderate nuclear fission.

Spector and other experts want Cirus formally designated a
civilian facility open to international inspection and the
plutonium it produced sequestered from the military inventory.
Only four of nearly 60 Indian nuclear facilities are now open
to inspection, according to Carnegie experts.

Central to the agreement is a plan specifying how many and
what plants and personnel India will designate as related to
its civilian program versus its military program.

“Yes, I have come with certain ideas … but the place to
discuss this is in the joint (U.S.-India) working group,” not
in public, Saran said.

Asked if the U.S.-India deal means American companies would
be favored over other countries for nuclear-related contracts,
Saran only promised a “level playing field.”

He also said that U.S. calls for India to agree to
international inspections “in perpetuity” could only be agreed
if the United States guaranteed fuel in perpetuity.